3/4/15

The Miracles of Jesus by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=556

The Miracles of Jesus

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

In John 20:31, we learn why Jesus performed miracles—so “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” The miracles of Christ recorded in the Gospels proved that Jesus had been given all power in Heaven and on Earth. Trustworthy men documented that He had power over the human body and could heal sickness and disease with the touch of His hand (Matthew 8:1-4). On other occasions, He proved that He had power over the spiritual world by forgiving sins (Luke 5:20-24) and casting out demons (Luke 6:18). He also had power to control the physical world by calming storms and walking on water (Matthew 14:25-43). And His power over death was shown through His glorious resurrection three days after His crucifixion (John 20:24-29).
Jesus’ miracles were designed to prove that He was the Son of God. Even the Pharisees, His worst enemies, admitted: “This man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him” (John 11:47-48). Yet they steadfastly refused to believe that He was God’s Son. Many of them even saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead, heal the sick, and cause the blind to see. Yet they would not admit to His deity.
Why should it be any different today? Anyone who takes an honest look at the evidence should see that this world must have had a Creator. The Bible is inspired by that Creator, and informs us that Jesus performed miracles to prove He was the Son of God. Yet many people will brush aside all the evidence—just as the Pharisees did—and deny Christ’s divinity. The Judgment Day will find those people hearing the words of Christ: “Woe unto you!… For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matthew 11:21).

CONCLUSION

Miracles are only impossible in a world with no God. Throughout history, God has used miracles to create the Universe, to add credibility to the men who had been entrusted with His message, and to accomplish His divine purposes. Jesus of Nazareth repeatedly performed miraculous deeds in order to prove to His followers (and to His enemies!) that He was indeed the Son of God. Sadly, many people during Christ’s day refused to believe in Him as God’s Son. And, just as sadly, many today stubbornly refuse to believe in the Sonship of Christ. As Christ told the unbelieving Pharisees of His day, so will He tell the modern-day disbelievers, “Woe unto you!"

From Mark Copeland... Difficulties With Evolutionary Science


                        "THE CASE FOR CREATION"

                 Difficulties With Evolutionary Science

INTRODUCTION

1. Many people assume that science has proven evolution as a fact...
   a. That it is no longer a theory
   b. But an irrefutable explanation for the origin of life
   c. A good reason to reject the Biblical account of creation

2. This is because most are unaware that...
   a. Crucial elements of evolutionary theory have never been proven
   b. There is a growing dissent among scientists regarding 
      evolution

[In this study I want to illustrate that there are difficulties with
evolutionary science, leading some to suggest that it is a "theory in
crisis".  But first we should carefully define our terms...]

I. DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION

   A. IN SIMPLEST TERMS...
      1. Evolution = change
      2. Evolution = change over time
      3. Evolution = a process that results in heritable changes in a
         population spread over many generations
      -- Both creationists and evolutionists agree with this basic definition

   B. MICROEVOLUTION...
      1. This term generally refers to evolutionary change below the
         level of species
      2. Though some apply it to changes below the level of genera or even families
         a. The Genesis account refers to God creating "according to its kind" - Gen 1:24-25
         b. Some understand "kind=species", but "kind" might include
            genera or families
      3. This change is easily observable, especially within species
      4. Even if it were shown that evolution produces a change from one
         species to another, it does not necessarily contradict the Genesis account
      -- Creationists acknowledge this degree of evolution as factual

   C. MACROEVOLUTION...
      1. This term generally refers to evolutionary change at or above
         the level of species
      2. Though some apply it to changes above the level of genera or families
      3. This relates to large scale changes over geological time, e.g.,
         "from amoeba to man"
      4. This degree of change is not observable, but assumed based on extrapolation
      -- Evolutionists claim this degree of evolution as factual

   D. OTHER TERMS...
      1. Darwinism - A theory of organic evolution claiming that new
         species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection
      2. Neo-Darwinism - A modern Darwinian theory that explains new
         species in terms of genetic mutations, more properly known as
         Modern Evolution Synthesis
      -- In both views, evidence from microevolution is extrapolated to
         support macroevolution

[The difficulties of evolutionary science discussed in this lesson
pertain to macroevolution, not microevolution.  Microevolution is a
fact, but macroevolution is a theory much in dispute...]

II. DIFFICULTIES WITH EVOLUTION

   A. IT IS A LIMITED THEORY...
      1. "It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian
         synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been
         carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of
         the theory are limited to the interpretation of the minutiae of
         evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths;
         while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which
         interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the
         first place." - Ho, Mae-Wan & Saunders, P.T., "Beyond
         neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution," Journal
         of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, 1979
      2. "Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that
         Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution:
         it can explain the variations and the adaptations within
         species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different
         habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of
         organism that are the foundation of biological classification
         systems seem to require a principle other than natural
         selection operating on small variations, some process that
         gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is
         the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of
         novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary
         interest in biology." - Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology,
         Open University, UK], "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The
         Evolution of Complexity," 1994
      -- Microevolution has been proven, but macroevolution has not!

   B. IT IS A FAILED THEORY...
      1. "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can
         explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of
         distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an
         adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial
         theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small-scale adaptive
         changes in organisms)." - Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology,
         Open University, UK], "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an
         evolutionary theory," The Times Higher Education Supplement, May 19, 1995
      2. "My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial
         objective, which is to explain the origin of species. Now, let
         me explain exactly what I mean by that. I mean it fails to
         explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during
         evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals,
         starfish, crabs, fish, birds." - Goodwin, Brian, "An interview
         with Professor Brian Goodwin by Dr David King," GenEthics News,
         Issue 11. March/April 1996
      -- These are not the words of a creationist!

   C. IT IS A DYING THEORY...
      1. "I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
         unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
         Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a
         universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came
         first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox
         theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of
         macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it-since
         beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's characterization of
         the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a
         general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its
         persistence as textbook orthodoxy." - Gould, Stephen Jay
         [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA],
         "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?,"
         Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980
      2. "More and more workers are showing signs of dissatisfaction
         with the synthetic theory. Some are attacking its philosophical
         foundations, arguing that the reason that it has been so amply
         confirmed is simply that it is unfalsifiable: with a little
         ingenuity any observation can be made to appear consistent with
         it. Others have been deliberately setting out to work in just
         those areas in which neo-Darwinism is least comfortable, like
         the problem of the gaps in the fossil record or the mechanisms
         of non-Mendelian inheritance. Still others, notably some
         systematists, have decided to ignore the theory altogether, and
         to carry on their research without any a priori assumption
         about how evolution has occurred. Perhaps most significantly of
         all, there is now appearing a stream of articles and books
         defending the synthetic theory. It is not so long ago that
         hardly anyone thought this was necessary." - Ho, Mae-Wan
         [Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T.
         [Mathematician, University of London], eds., "Beyond Neo-
         Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm,"
         Academic Press: London, 1984
      3. "The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists
         that natural selection was the only directive influence on
         adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the
         synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians
         are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its
         failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural
         selection of random mutations could account for observed levels
         of adaptation." - Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [Biologist, Smithsonian
         Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and
         creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12
      -- Scientists are having to go "back to the drawing board"!

[To my knowledge, the scientists quoted above are not creationists.  But
together with many other scientists they illustrate a growing...]

III. DISSENT REGARDING EVOLUTION

   A. SCIENTIFIC DISSENT REGARDING DARWINISM...
      1. "During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many
         scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology,
         "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused
         scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of
         natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail."
      2. "Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and
         science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of
         evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The
         public has been assured that all known evidence supports
         Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world
         believes the theory to be true."
      3. "The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand
         as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since
         Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of
         scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names."
      4. "The list is growing and includes scientists from the US
         National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech
         National Academies, as well as from universities such as
         Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others."
      5. Their Statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of
         random mutation and natural selection to account for the
         complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for
         Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
      6. Over 700 scientists have signed the above statement - The List Of Scientists
      -- Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

   B. MEDICAL DISSENT REGARDING DARWINISM...
      1. "Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in many
         countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing
         views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution."
      2. "Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and
         teachers have either been censored or removed from their
         positions for allowing or facilitating open discussion of the
         empirical problems of macroevolution."
      3. "As academia has suppressed freedom of speech in this area,
         another avenue needs to be available to promote accurate
         information and the free exchange of ideas concerning the
         debate over Darwinism and alternative theories on origins."
      4. "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) was
         established as a means for physicians and surgeons to publicly
         be counted among those skeptical of nature-driven Darwinian macroevolution."
      5. Their statement:  "As medical doctors we are skeptical of the
         claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection
         to account for the origination and complexity of life and we
         therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable
         theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."
      6. Almost 300 doctors have signed the above statement - The List Of Doctors
      -- Physicians And Surgeons For Scientific Integrity

CONCLUSION

1. I have not presented specific problems with macroevolution, such as...
   a. The Cambrian explosion
   b. Gaps in the fossil records
   c. Lack of transitional forms
   d. Evidence of humans coexisting with dinosaurs
   -- I am not scientist, and willing to let others evaluate such evidence

2. But it does not take a trained scientist to know that macroevolution...
   a. Is only a theory, not yet proven
   b. Is a leap of blind faith (requiring extrapolation without
      sufficient evidence)
   -- The major difference between the Biblical account and Darwinian theory

3. My purpose is simply to emphasize...
   a. "There is scientific dissent from Darwinism."
   b. "It deserves to be heard."
   -- Dissent From Evolution, ibid.

Reasons why we do not often hear about such dissent in our schools and
mainstream media will be considered in our next and final lesson...

Note:  Quotations in the section "Difficulties With Evolution" were
copied from a compilation of quotes on creation and evolution by Stephen
E. Jones.


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Gary... Change

Some people will not turn from sin no matter what.  Unfortunately, this is a fact of life.  Yet, for the sake of appearance, some will outwardly pretend to change. John the Baptizer was one who saw people for what they actually were and told the unvarnished truth.  And it was not pretty....

Matthew, Chapter 3 (WEB)

  1 In those days, John the Baptizer came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying,  2 “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” 3 For this is he who was spoken of by Isaiah the prophet, saying, 
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
make ready the way of the Lord.
Make his paths straight.”

  4  Now John himself wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then people from Jerusalem, all of Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him.  6 They were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.  7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for his baptism, he said to them, “You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?  8 Therefore produce fruit worthy of repentance!  9 Don’t think to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 

  10  “Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire.  11 I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.  12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.” 


The one after John is Jesus and verse 12 (b) still applies.  Crunch time; either we listen (and change) or don't. I think that listening would be a good idea, don't you? And if, after a healthy self-assessment, you realize your sin- Change!!!  There really is no getting around verse 12, is there?

3/2/15

The Non-Crucified Non-Saviors of the World by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=973

The Non-Crucified Non-Saviors of the World

by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

Today the church finds itself bombarded with all kinds of criticism. One of these is the notion that Christianity owes its origins to pagan religions. One particularly troubling issue for some Christians is the massive amount of misinformation circulating on the Internet concerning the various “crucified saviors” of the world. Jesus is claimed to be no different than dozens of other saviors who were crucified for the sins of mankind, and later resurrected. If this were true, then Jesus would be merely a Johnny-come-lately to the religious scene, no different and no more authoritative than Zeus, Odin, or Thor.
The nineteenth century was the seedbed of comparative religion, which sought to analyze and discover the connections between various world religions. Critics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were guilty of glossing over important differences for the sake of making connections between different religious traditions, including Christianity. Usually these connections were highly dubious in nature, and no real scholar uses this approach today. While it can be shown that some ancient pagan religions migrated, developed, and influenced others over time, Christianity is a different matter altogether.
Critics today—who almost universally have no training in ancient religion, philosophy, or languages—can be quite adamant that Christianity plagiarized ancient mythology when constructing the Bible and its supposed mythological traditions about Jesus. This idea is found in documentaries such as Bill Maher’s Religulous, Brian Flemming’s The God Who Wasn’t There, Peter Joseph’s Zeitgeist, the Movie, as well as in publications such as those by Dorothy M. Murdock’s The Sons of God, The Christ Conspiracy, and Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. All of these promote the idea of the “mythic Christ.”
Where did the idea of the mythic Christ originate? Much of it began in the writings of two amateur Egyptologists named Godfrey Higgins (1772-1833) and Gerald Massey (1829-1907). Both wrote extensively on the idea of the mythic Christ. They claimed one parallel after another between the Bible and pagan mythology, making it appear as if the biblical writers borrowed stories wholesale from ancient tales. Almost all scholars today recognize that this approach is fundamentally flawed. For nearly all of the supposed parallels these two men discovered, scholars today say without hesitation that no genetic connection exists between the Bible and the myths these two men examined.
Neither Higgins nor Massey was a scholar or academician, and both were self-taught religious enthusiasts (this generally holds true for all proponents of the Christ myth theory). More importantly, neither is remembered in the history of scholarship today. Writers such as Dorothy Murdock—a vocal proponent of the Christ myth theory—laments that these supposed intellectual titans have been forgotten. She heaps effusive praise upon Massey in particular (2009, pp. 13-26), calling him a “pioneer.” In truth, neither one of them had any ideas worth remembering. They are virtually unknown in modern Egyptology.
The work of Higgins and Massey was picked up and continued most famously by Kersey Graves, who authored the book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors (1919). This woefully outdated book is still standard reading for militant atheists. Unfortunately, Graves’ fans do not appear to realize that his book was based on the work of our two error-prone amateurs. To make matters worse, Graves did not appear to consult the original myths himself. It appears that he may have even falsified some of his work. In all of the cases of his “crucified saviors,” unlike Jesus, none were actually crucified, and none of them died salvific deaths, that is in behalf of the salvation of others. Indeed, some of them never died.
The chart below gives the names of the gods that Graves and others traditionally claim were crucified saviors. The problems become apparent rather quickly:
Adonis
Adonis dies when he is gored by a bull on a hunting trip.
Attis
In a moment of madness, Attis commits suicide by emasculating himself.
Baal
The text is unclear, but it appears Baal is slain in personal battle with Mot, the Canaanite god of death. 
Bacchus
Bacchus is the Roman equivalent of Dionysus, whose body is almost completely devoured by the Titans, who leave only his heart.
Balder
In the Norse myths, Balder is invincible to all known objects, except for mistletoe. One of the gods’ pastimes is throwing objects at Balder, who cannot be harmed. Loki crafts a magical spear from this plant and tricks the god Hodur into throwing it at Balder, killing him.
Beddru
Supposedly a Japanese figure. Either Graves had a bad source, or he simply invented the name, as no figure with this name exists in Far Eastern literature. It may be that he meant to say “Beddou,” who is a Japanese figure some have equated with the Buddha. Regardless, there is no record of the crucifixion of this individual, if he even existed in any of the literature.
Devatat
This is uncertain, but appears to be the name of the Buddha in some places in the Far East. The literature states that the Buddha died at 80 of a natural illness, though some say he was poisoned. Either way, he never died on a cross, and Buddhism has no need of a personal savior, anyway.
Dionysus
The Greek god of wine and the grapevine had a tough childhood. When an infant, the Titans devour his body, leaving only his heart behind. He is later reborn.
Hercules
Hercules dies when he is burned alive on a funeral pyre. 
Hermes
Hermes never dies in the Greek myths.
Horus
Horus never dies in the Egyptian myths.
Krishna
Krishna is mortally wounded when a hunter accidentally shoots him in the heel with an arrow.
Mithras
Mithras does not die in the Persian myths.
Orpheus
In one account, Orpheus is torn apart by Maenads, the female followers of Dionysus, for failing to honor their master. In other accounts he either commits suicide or is struck by one of Zeus’ lightning bolts.
Osiris
Osiris is killed when his brother Seth drowns him in the Nile. Seth later recovers the body and dismembers it.
Tammuz
Originally called Dumuzi by the Sumerians, Tammuz is taken to the underworld when his lover, Inanna, is given a deal where she can be released if she finds a substitute. She is enraged that Tammuz is not mourning her death, so she chooses him to take her place in the realm of the dead. There is no mention of crucifixion.
Thor
Thor dies in Ragnarok, the final battle that will end the world, when he is bitten by a giant serpent.
Zoroaster
According to one ancient source, Zoroaster was murdered while at an altar.
Upon even a cursory inspection, it becomes clear that none of the so-called “crucified saviors” were actually crucified. Indeed, none of them are saviors, dying for the sins of humanity. Self-sacrifice was not involved. Instead, many did not die at all, or died an accidental death, or were murdered. Worse yet, none of them resurrected from a tomb. A few of the divine figures on the list were revived (or deified), but in a different manner than the Christian concept of resurrection. In short, this list consists purely of non-crucified non-saviors. Why are these connections made if they never truly existed? In short, it is due to careless research and preconceived biases that are immune to evidence.
While the idea of the pagan or mythic Christ draws from a variety of ancient mythologies, it is heavily influenced by Egyptian mythology, perhaps because the early proponents of this theory worked primarily with myths from Egypt. They also made connections based on preposterously thin evidence. Some examples of the typical connections include the following from Gerald Massey’s book Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ:
  • Jesus’ casting of a group of demons  calling themselves “Legion” into a group of pigs, which is equated with a story in which Horus turns someone into a pig (1996, pp. 62-63).
  • Jesus and Horus are each claimed to have had two mothers—two Marys for Jesus, and the goddesses Isis and Nephthys for Horus (p. 118).
  • Herod the Great, despite being a well-known figure to historians, is equated with Herrut, the Typhonian Serpent (p. 95).
In their book Unmasking the Pagan Christ, Porter and Bedard summarize Massey’s position this way:
[H]is conclusions rely on exaggerations and forced parallels that too often used later interpretations o the Gospels, rather than the primary texts themselves. To make matters worse, Massey cites numerous parallels without any indication of the original references in the Egyptian texts. Massey also begins the practice…of describing Egyptian myths with biblical language in an attempt to find a causal link (Porter and Bedard 2006, p. 30).
If the idea of a “crucified savior” had been as common as the critics allege, then it would not have been included among the criticisms leveled against the early Christians. The apostle Paul stated that the cross was a stumbling block to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23), which would have been quite strange if the Greeks recognized any of the so-called “crucified saviors” mentioned by Graves and others. Justin Martyr admitted that preaching a crucified Christ appeared to be madness: “[The opponents of the church] say that our madness lies in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place to the unchangeable and eternal God, the creator of the world” (Apology I, 13.4). If everyone had crucified gods, then they would not have criticized the Christians for having one, too.
The picture that quickly emerges when looking at the original sources is one of exceedingly poor research on the part of the critics. It is one thing to make an honest mistake, but their litany of errors is academically unacceptable. At times, even other skeptics and atheists chide their fellow unbelievers for their careless work. Writing a review of Zeitgeist, the Movie in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, leading skeptic Tim Callahan is highly critical of the “sloppy assumptions” in the documentary, concluding, “Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids” (Callahan, 2009, p. 67).
Some of this sloppy work includes failing to cite sources properly. Graves was not the only one guilty of failing to cite his sources or inventing material out of whole cloth. Of the pseudo-scholars in the 19thand early 20th century who promoted the Christy myth theory, apologist J.P. Holding says,
Kersey Graves…assures the reader that he has before him plenty of original documentation for his claims of crucifixion parallels, but…doesn’t have room to include any. And this is the rule, not the exception. Lundy, Higgins, Inman, Graves, Doane, etc., they all claim they have read or heard this or that, but none of them can site [sic]a single source document (Holding, 2008, p. 376, italics in orig.).
Because of its manifold problems, the idea of the mythic Christ is difficult even for many atheists to swallow. On the anti-Christian Web site Infidels.org, historian and atheist Richard Carrier lists ten major problems with Graves’ work, the last of which is that “Graves’ scholarship is obsolete, having been vastly improved upon by new methods, materials, discoveries, and textual criticism in the century since he worked” (Carrier, 2003). Scholars see Graves’ work as worthless. Critics find it absolutely indispensible, perhaps because there are no scholarly treatments that agree with their presuppositions.
The Christ myth theory has not been answered by many scholars, simply because they choose not to waste their time debunking fringe theories. Experts are usually preoccupied with teaching and research, with a few of them engaged in archaeology and other academic pursuits as well. This leaves little time for answering the preposterous claims of the “Christ mythers.” (In personal e-mails to three leading New Testament scholars, each noted that the Christ myth theory holds no place of respect in modern scholarship. Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary said, “[T]his whole discussion is considered beyond the pale and beyond belief, even with liberals.” When asked whether the paucity of scholarly material on the pagan Christ was because scholars do not waste their time on “crackpot theories,” Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary said, “I think you have got the reason you cannot find stuff.” Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary confessed, “I do not know anything about this issue…. I am tempted to think it is the lunatic fringe.” The issue is so intellectually bankrupt that liberal scholarship does not endorse it, and other scholars may not even be familiar with it).
Critics will always “discover” parallels between Christianity and pagan religions in the attempt to make believers look foolish. Ironically, this quest only demonstrates their own academic shortcomings. Time and time again Christianity demonstrates its uniqueness among the world religions. It is the hallmark of truth for a world in desperate need of history’s one and only crucified Savior.  

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim (2009), “Greatest Story Ever Garbled: A Critique of ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told’—Part I of the Internet Film Zeitgeist,” Skeptic, 15[1]:61-67.
Carrier, Richard (2003), “Kersey Graves and the World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors,” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html.
Graves, Kersey (1919), The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors or Christianity Before Christ (New York: Peter Eckler Publishing), sixth edition.
Holding, James P. (2008), Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press).
Massey, Gerald (1996), Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ (Whitefish, MT: Kessenger).
Murdock, Dorothy M. (2009), Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (Seattle, WA: Stellar House).
Porter, Stanley E. and Stephen J. Bedard (2006), Unmasking the Pagan Christ (Toronto, ON: Clements Publishing).

From Mark Copeland... The Case For Six Literal 24 Hour Days


                        "THE CASE FOR CREATION"

                 The Case For Six Literal 24 Hour Days

INTRODUCTION

1. I believe it fair to say that any casual, first-time reader of
   Genesis...
   a. Will conclude it teaches all things were created in six days
   b. That those days were six literal 24 hour days

2. The popularity of the theory of evolution has led many to...
   a. Discount any literal interpretation of Genesis 1
   b. Seek biblical support for a less literal understanding of the       days of creation

[On the other hand, there are good reasons to take the Genesis account at face value, for both biblical and scientific reasons.  From a biblical perspective, let's consider some...]

I. ARGUMENTS FOR SIX LITERAL 24 HOUR DAYS

   A. HEBREW LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES...
      1. Lexicographers consistently cite the enumerated days of Genesis 1:1-31 as examples of a solar day 
         - Robert V. McCabe, A Defense Of Literal Days In The Creation Week
      2. The following examples were offered by McCabe (plus one that I found):
         a. The Dictionary Of Classical Hebrew - Clines
         b. A Hebrew And English Lexicon Of The Old Testament - Brown,Driver, Briggs
         c. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
            - Baumgartner, Stamm
         d. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament - Saeboe
         e. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
            Exegesis - Verhoef
         f. Dictionary Of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains:
            Hebrew (Old Testament) - Swanson
      -- These lexicons and dictionaries cite the days of creation as
         literal 24 hour days

   B. SEMANTIC CONSTRAINTS FOR SINGULAR USE OF "DAY"...
      1. "When yôm is used in the singular and is not part of a compound
         grammatical construction, it is consistently used in reference
         to a literal day of 24 hours or to the daytime portion of a
         literal day." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. "The extended, non-literal meanings of the term yôm are always
         found in connection with prepositions, prepositional phrases
         with a verb, compound constructions, formulas, technical
         expressions, genitive combinations, construct phrases, and the
         like. In other words, extended, non-literal meanings of this
         Hebrew term have special linguistic and contextual connections
         which indicate clearly that a non-literal meaning is intended.
         If such special linguistic connections are absent, the term yôm
         does not have an extended, non-literal meaning; it has its
         normal meaning of a literal day of 24-hours." - Gerhard F.
         Hasel, as quoted by McCabe
      -- The semantic use of the singular suggests a literal day

   C. NUMERIC QUALIFIERS AND "DAY"...
      1. "When each day of the creation week is summarized, the singular
         'day' is modified by a numerical qualifier, 'first day' (v.5),
         'second day (v.8), and sequentially continuing to the 'sixth
         day' (vv. 13, 19, 24,  31)." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. "When yôm is qualified by a number, it is almost invariably
         used in a literal sense." - ibid.
      -- The numeric qualifiers suggest a literal day

   D. SEQUENTIAL NUMBERING AND "DAY"...
      1. "The sequential use of the ordinal  numbers "first" through
         "sixth" for each day of the creation week, followed by the
         "seventh day" indicates a chronological progression of days."
         - E. J. Young, as referenced by McCabe
      2. "What seems of significance is the sequential emphasis of the
         numerals 1-7 without any break or temporal interruption. This
         seven-day schema, the schema of the week of six workdays
         followed by 'the seventh day' as rest day, interlinks the
         creation "days" as normal days in a consecutive and non-
         interrupted sequence." - Hasel, ibid.
      -- The sequential numbering suggests a literal day

   E. EVENING AND MORNING AS QUALIFIERS OF "DAY"...
      1. "So the evening and the morning were the ____ day." - Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31
      2. "Whether 'evening' and 'morning' are used together in a context
         with yôm (19 times beyond the 6 uses in Genesis 1) or they are
         used without yôm (38 times), they are used consistently in
         reference to literal days." - McCabe, ibid.
      -- The use of morning and evening suggest a literal day

   F. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND "DAY"...
      1. Problem one
         a. Fruit trees and seed-bearing plants were created on the third day - Gen 1:11-12
         b. Much vegetation requires insects for pollination
         c. Insects were not created until the sixth day - Gen 1:24-25
         d. It would be impossible for many plants to survive long
            periods without insects
         e. "A symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is
            coordinate with literal and successive days in Genesis 1,
            but this would not be the case if the days refer to extended
            periods." - McCabe, ibid.
      2. Problem two
         a. "If days are figurative and if there is any consistency in
            interpretation, then there must extended periods of light
            corresponding to 'morning' and of darkness corresponding to'evening.'" - ibid.
         b. "This would guarantee that both plant and animal life would
            be unable to survive." - ibid.
      -- The sequence of events suggest a literal day

   G. SCRIPTURAL CONSIDERATIONS...
      1. In the Old Testament
         a. "There are two passages, dealing with regulations for the
            observance of the Sabbath that cogently reinforce a literal
            interpretation of the days in the creation week." - McCabe,ibid.
         b. "These passages are Exo 20:8-11 and Exo 31:14-17." - ibid.
         c. "According to these two texts, the references to the
            creation week are not analogous - man's rest is not simply
            like God's rest on the seventh day - instead, man is to
            imitate the divine Exemplar. Since God worked for six days
            and rested on the seventh, the nation of Israel must follow his example." - ibid.
      2. In the New Testament
         1. The origin of man and marriage was "from the beginning of the creation"
            a. Man was created male and female "from the beginning" - Mk 10:6; cf. Gen 1:27
            b. The institution of marriage soon followed - Mk 10:7-8;cf. Gen 2:20-24
            c. If it was ages after "the beginning of creation", this
               would not be true
         2. Death and corruption was a consequence of Adam's sin
            a. By man came death, in Adam all die - Gen 2:17; cf. 1Co 15:21-22
            b. By man's sin, the earth was cursed - Gen 3:17; cf. Ro 8:20-22
            c. If the "days" of Genesis 1 are long periods of time,
               death and corruption occurred long before Adam
      -- The scriptural considerations suggest the Genesis account should be taken literally

[Such are some of the Biblical or scriptural reasons for taking Genesis
1-2 at face value.  It is certainly not an exhaustive treatment of the
subject.  For more information, including resources that subscribe to a
literal view of the days of Creation from a scientific perspective, here are some...]

II. RESOURCES FOR SIX LITERAL 24 HOUR DAYS

   A. FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE...
      1. A Defense Of Literal Days In The Creation Week - Robert V.
         McCabe, Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
      2. Creation Days And Orthodox Jewish Tradition - Paul-James Griffiths
      3. A Summary Of Evidence For Literal 24-Hr Creation Days In
         Genesis 1 - Andrew S. Kulikovsky
      4. The Days Of Creation:  A Semantic Approach - James Stambaugh
      5. Studies About The Days Of Genesis 1 - David E. Pratte
      -- These resources argue that the case for six literal 24 hour
         days is biblically sound

   B. FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE...
      1. Institute For Creation Research - Henry M. Morris, Duane Gish
      2. Answers In Genesis - Ken Ham
      3. The Creation Research Society
      4. Creation Ministries International
      5. Bible.ca's Scientific Evidence For Creation - Don Patton, Steve Rudd
      6. A List Of Over 175 Scientists - who accept the biblical account of Creation
      -- These resources argue that the case for six literal 24 hour
         days is scientifically sound

CONCLUSION

1. Before rejecting that God created all things in six literal 24 hours
   days, one should ask...
   a. Is it consistent in regards to Hebrew syntax as found in the Bible?
   b. Is it in harmony with the rest of the biblical record?
   -- For those who accept the Bible as the Word of God, such concerns
      should be paramount

2. One should also ask...
   a. Must we force our view of Genesis 1 to fit popular evolutionary thinking?
   b. Is it scientifically necessary to do so?
   -- Has the theory of evolution been proven as it relates to origins?

To help answer the latter questions, our next two lessons will focus on
problems with the theory of evolution...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Gary... The unbroken chain


Curious picture. Why would someone do this?  Frankly, I DO NOT KNOW.  Yet, there MUST be a good reason, for who would use such a heavy chain without forethought?  I would encourage anyone with an answer to proffer it, as I am at a loss to understand what is really going on here!!!  However, who says I need to understand everything? The early Christians certainly did not. Take this passage from Peter's second letter...

2 Peter, Chapter 3
15 Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you;  16 as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.  17 You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. 

I wish the world was different, that deceit and trickery were unheard of and that everyone could somehow just "get along". Experience has taught me that this will never happen and once I get past this, I realize that I just need to be exactly what God wants me to be and that is that, period.

A second look at this picture makes me realize something else. This person did NOT WANT TO BE WITHOUT THEIR CRUTCH!!!  I guess we all need help in one way or another and we need to hold unto what works for us. Christians- hold unto Jesus!!! He makes the lame to walk and you won't need to worry about a crutch!!! And be thankful that HE will always be there and no one can break the bond (or perhaps, the chain) between you!!!!

2/28/15

The Only True God by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=5014

The Only True God

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The Bible is full of scriptures that, when quoted without any consideration of the immediate and remote contexts, a person can misuse in all sorts of ways. As proof that we do not have to work to provide for our family’s material needs, some may quote Jesus’ statement, “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life” (John 6:27). In order to show that Jesus was a liar, the Bible critic might quote Jesus’ acknowledgement: “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true” (John 5:31). Those who exclude baptism from God’s plan of salvation often quote John 4:2: “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.” When the Bible reader is “rightly dividing” (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV) or “handling accurately the word of truth” (NASB), however, he will remember that “[t]he sum of thy [God’s] word is truth” (Psalm 119:160, emp. added). Since the Bible teaches “if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10; cf. 1 Timothy 5:8), Jesus never implied that working to help feed one’s family is wrong (John 6:27). “He simply was saying that spiritual food is more important than physical food, and as such, should be given a higher priority” (Butt, 2003, emp. in orig.). Jesus did not confess wrongdoing in John 5:31. He simply acknowledged that, in accordance with the law (cf. Deuteronomy 19:15), His testimony apart from other witnesses would be considered invalid or insufficient to establish truth (cf. John 8:13-20; see Lyons, 2004). Likewise, Jesus never taught that baptism was unnecessary for salvation. In fact, He taught the very opposite (cf. John 3:3,5; Mark 16:16; Matthew 28:18-20; see Lyons, 2003).
Consider another proof text from the Gospel of John regarding the nature of Christ. Some (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) contend that Jesus was not deity since, on one occasion, He prayed to the Father: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3; cf. “Should You Believe...?,” 2000). Allegedly, by calling the Father, “the only true God,” Jesus excluded Himself from being deity. Such an interpretation of John 17:3, however, contradicts numerous other passages within John’s own gospel account. From beginning to end, John bore witness to the deity of Christ. Some of the evidence from the Gospel of John includes the following:
  • In the very first verse of John, the apostle testified: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (emp. added; cf. 1:14,17).
  • Two verses later the reader learns that “[a]ll things came into being by Him [the Word], and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:3, NASB).
  • Still in the first chapter of John, the apostle testified that John the Baptizer was the one whom Isaiah foretold would “prepare...the way of Jehovah” (Isaiah 40:3; John 1:23; cf. 14:6). For Whom did John the Baptizer come to prepare the way? Isaiah called Him “Jehovah.” The apostle John, as well as John the Baptizer, referred to Jehovah as “Jesus” (John 1:17), “the Christ” (3:28), “the Word” (1:1), “the Light” (1:17), “the Lamb” (1:29), “the Truth” (5:33), etc.
  • When the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well told Jesus, “I know that Messiah is coming” (John 4:25), Jesus responded, “I who speak to you am He” (vs. 26). Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be called “Mighty God” (9:6) and “Jehovah” (40:3). Thus, by claiming to be the Messiah, Jesus was claiming to be God.
  • In John chapter nine, Jesus miraculously healed a man with congenital blindness (vs. 1). When this man appeared before various Jews in the synagogue and called Jesus a prophet (vs. 17), he was instructed to “give glory to God,” not Jesus, because allegedly Jesus “is a sinner” (vs. 24). Later, after the man born blind was cast out of the synagogue, he confessed faith in Jesus andworshiped (Greek proskuneo) Him (vs. 38). In the Gospel of John, this word (proskuneo) is found 11 times: nine times in reference to worshiping the Father (John 4:2-24), once in reference to Greeks who came to “worship” in Jerusalem during Passover (12:20), and once in reference to the worship Jesus received from a man whom He had miraculously healed, and who had just confessed faith in Jesus. Indeed, by accepting worship Jesus acknowledged His deity (cf. Matthew 4:10; Hebrews 1:6).
  • While at the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, Jesus claimed: “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30). “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him” (vs. 31). Why did Jesus’ enemies want to stone Him? The Jews said to Christ: “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God” (vs. 33, emp. added; cf. 5:17-18).
  • After Jesus rose from the dead, the apostle Thomas called Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus responded: “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (vs. 29). Notice that Jesus did not deny His deity, rather He acknowledged Thomas’ faith and commended future believers. Believers in what? In that which Thomas had just confessed—that Jesus is Lord and God.
It was in the overall context of John’s gospel account, which is filled with statements testifying of Jesus’ deity, that the apostle recorded Jesus’ prayer to His Father the night of His betrayal (John 17). But how can Jesus’ statement about His Father being “the only true God” (17:3) be harmonized with statements by Jesus, the apostle John, John the Baptizer, Thomas, etc. affirming the deity of Christ? When a person understands that Jesus’ statement was made in opposition to the world’s false gods, and not Himself, the reference to the Father being “the only true God” harmonizes perfectly with the many scriptures that attest to the deity of Christ (including those outside of the book of John; cf. Matthew 1:23; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:5-13). On the eve of Jesus’ crucifixion, it was completely natural for Him to pray that “all flesh/people” (John 17:2, NKJV/NIV), many of whom were (and still are) pagan idolaters, would come to know “the only true God” and receive eternal life (17:3). Thus, Jesus contrasted Himself not with the Father, but “with all forms of pagan polytheism, mystic pantheism, and philosophic naturalism” (Jamieson, et al., 1997).
Furthermore, if Jesus’ reference to the Father being “the only true God” somehow excludes Jesus from being deity, then (to be consistent) Jesus also must be disqualified from being man’s Savior. Jehovah said: “Besides me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43:11; cf. Hosea 13:4; Jude 25). Yet, Paul and Peter referred to Jesus as our “Savior” several times in their inspired writings (Ephesians 5:23; Philippians 3:20; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1,11; 2:20; etc.). Also, if Jesus is excluded from Godhood (based on a misinterpretation of John 17:3), then, pray tell, must God the Father be excluded from being man’s Lord? To the church at Ephesus, Paul wrote that there is “one Lord” (4:4, emp. added), and, according to Jude 4 (using Jehovah’s Witnesses own New World Translation) “our only Owner and Lord” is “Jesus Christ” (emp. added). Yet, in addition to Jesus being called Lord throughout the New Testament, so is God the Father (Matthew 11:25; Luke 1:32; Acts 1:25) and the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17).
Obviously, when the Bible reveals that there is only one God, one Savior, one Lord, one Creator (Isaiah 44:24; John 1:3), etc., reason and revelation demand that we understand the inspired writers to be excluding everyone and everything—other than the triune God. As former Jehovah’s Witness David Reed explained: “Jesus’ being called our ‘only’ Lord does not rule out the Lordship of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Father’s being called the ‘only’ true God does not exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit from deity” (1986, p. 82).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Wearing Gold and Braided Hair,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2264.
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Lyons, Eric (2003), “The Bible’s Teaching on Baptism: Contradictory or Complementary?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/617.
Lyons, Eric (2004), “Was Jesus Trustworthy?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/516.
Reed, David (1986), Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
“Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (2000), The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.